Microsoft does not want us to be confident, they want us to be afraid (Fear)
Microsoft does not want us to be certain, they want us to be uncertain. (Uncertainity)
And they want us to have doubts of everything. (Doubt)
And sadly, on Slashdot, they have succeeded.
Every Linux-story no matter how great news, is bad-mouthed and doubted. (Just read the recent Linux-adoption threads. Full of "but if it can't perform" - Fear, "we have to take care of what Microsoft plans to do" - Uncertainty, "the battle is not won" - Doubt)
Linux is technically ready for all mainstream computing tasks (including the desktop) but it is a marketing desaster because her own people (!) spread FUD all over the place to slow it down.
Re:Unlikely!
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
So that 80$ allows me to put Windows on every machine on my network, right?
AAC is actually worse than mp3 at higher bitrates and ogg is best at both low and high bitrates. At 128kbps, the differences to the original are no longer audible for the vast majority of users.
Try 128 kbps, if you still hear a difference to CD-sound (which is unlikely) try 150 or 160 kbps.
And when I say "try it" I mean "don't lie to yourself - make a blind test".
That would be ogg. I've found the results in the listening tests from heise, several thousand readers participated, each had to rank 7 samples from best to worst. Nobody knew which sample is which codec and which was identical to the original.
I give here the average rankings: (lower is better)
The sample consisted of 3 sections - pop, jazz and classic music.
heise also made an inhouse-testing session at 160 kbps, but with only 8 testers (so this test should be taken with a grain of salt):
The results (from best to worst):
wav-ogg-aac-wma-real-mp3-mp3pro
At 128 kbps, there is practically no audible difference between the original and ogg according to this test. Also, ogg is the only codec to come close to the original wav - notice the gap between ogg and wma. And ogg won all 3 test categories (but as I said, the 160 kbps test was made only with 8 testers)
Try it yourself, encode some oggs, mp3s and mix them into the original, then shuffle the playlist and try to guess which is which without looking at the playlist.
Or even better (and more challenging): encode 160 kbps mp3s and shuffle them into 128kbps oggs. I bet that the oggs sound better.
Just look at a device that sais: "holds 1000 songs" [of 128kbps.mp3] and then look at the device right beside that sais: "holds 2000 songs" [of 64 kbps.ogg which sound better than 128kbps according to listening tests]
Be happy because if they were pro-Windows, you would not be allowed to post your opinon here (were are all those forums on pro-Windows sites? Where are they? I don't see any, because they don't exist.)
slashdot is one of the few sites still run by amateurs. They make typing mistakes, sure. They make editing errors. They have duplicate stories. But it's one of the few major sites left not controlled by big corps. And they let anonymous guys like you post their opinion.
If Micorsoft would have won the battle against the Internet, we would now all run the proprietary MSN service (which is very different to the MSN today.), only big corps could afford to put something on the net and there would be no Linux, no slashdot and you could not write your opinion in a forum, because such forums would also not exist.
So, after some problems, it's problem-free? What kind of sense does that make?
It makes sense in the medium to long term. If you plan to live longer than a year it makes sense. If you are suicidal, over 80 and/or a cancer patient it probably doesn't make sense.
Are you really so slow or why do I have to explain that to you? It's really not that complicated.
Ogg is not "slightly" better than mp3, it's massively better. In listening tests from heise.de, 64kbps oggs were closer to the original (or better) than 128kbps mp3s. (And it was the best codec of all, better than WMA, AAC and MP3pro.)
So if the hardware manufacturers support ogg, they can say that their device holds 2*x songs instead of x. If you buy such a device would you go for the one that holds 1000 songs or the other that holds 2000 songs if they cost the same?
Also, the hardware vendors sure don't want to pay for mp3 forever so it's in their interest that another format replaces it. (Even if it takes a long time - like a decade or even longer.)
As a Linux-user I'm so sick of the Microsoft case that I almost which they would just set them free just this thing is over.
I'm sick of morons who don't get it. (Microsoft broke an agreement goddamnit. They agreed not to bundle IE with Windows and they did bundle IE with Windows at the next possiblitly.)
I'm sick of monopoly-whiners constantly complaining. We don't need whiners, we need a positive, optimistic attitude in the Linux community.
Let's face it: The US-government is both incompetent and corrupt.
There is no hope that the US-government will ever reintroduce a free, open and capitalistic market in the OS space (yes, you read that right. The market is not open. The force-bundelings of Windows are more close to communism than Linux can ever become), we will have to do that ourselves.
Let's forget that courtcase and move on.
And it can be done. All the mainstream software is right available. - Just show the software to users. All users I showed Mozilla to loved it (either because of tabbed browsing or because of ad-blocking). It's harder to convert the whole platform, but I've done that for a couple of users, too. After initial glitches and minor problems, it's much better and problem-free than any Windows installation.
Well, one might think so, but here and in other places Wintrolls (like you) are eager to point out that Windows is the best for *everybody* because everybody uses it. (Which is circular reasoning, but for you that probably doesn't matter)
Hell, I was called a crazy zealot because I made the claim that for 30% of computer users Linux would be the best solution right now. (I didn't even say for a majority, just 30%.)
And it's not just "somebody" in the article, it's 10000 desktops with 100000 more to come.
We need such articles to counter the constant bashing (by pro-Windows people) and the constant whining (by many pro-Linux people).
Newbies should get SuSE or Mandrake, pop in the DVD, wait for half an hour and have a full functional desktop - including office suite and loads of useful stuff preinstalled. (Try to unpack a.rar in a clean Windows install. Or try ICQ. Or IRC.)
Linux can be much easier than Windows if you choose the right distribution.
I'm so sick of FUD like this:
having working sound support in the first install should be a priority for Linux distributions
All major commercial distributions (hell, even RedHat which is by far the worst of all) had sound-support out of the box for years.
Yet the Wintrolls just don't get it.
(P.S. Yes, debian has it's uses, too. apt-get is great, the stability is excellent. Yet it's not really for users not willing to invest some time installing.)
Because SuSE will offer a complete solution without hassles. (no downloads, no extra installs, no extra budgets)
That said, no it's not for everybody. But a lot of users (especially corporations) will find it useful if it is preconfigured so that installing and using Win32 apps is easily and fast done.
If Crossover is able to run most Win32-mainstream apps by next year (as promised) and SuSE preconfigures and preinstalls it intelligently, the result can be *the* Windows-killer in the corporate space.
1.Your privacy can be assured. Tommorows EULA may want you to do a lot of things which you may not like. if you dont like privacy, then ignore this point.
Actually, the really scary part is that the EULA can change anytime and that Microsoft will take your system as hostage to push DRM down user's throat.
I don't think Microsoft will offer any non-DRM patches very long. (That is patches that don't require DRM being already installed and don't contain DRM)
Apart from grammar mistakes, the conclusion is also completely wrong.
MacOSX is over 10% slower in most test, that sure as hell is not pretty good. That's bad, very bad.
Especially if you realize that PPC is MacOSX' major (in fact the only) platform, while for Linux it's just a minor platform that receives not nearly as much attention as for example x86.
And I guess you could still squeeze out some performance gain if you use a source-based distro like Gentoo.
If you say that open source has a place in corporate webservers, I'd say that's a massive understatement.
Open Source (Apache and PHP) is the standard in the webserver space already and is gaining more marketshare every year.
Right now, only NBM (nothing but Microsoft) users and legacy systems run IIS. It doesn't offer anything valuable, except customer lock-in. (which is very valuable, but only for Microsoft)
Re:Perl was ruled out WHY???
on
Yahoo Moving to PHP
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Slashdot Mirror
It was more than 10% - and that's not "marginally faster" it's much faster especially if you consider that PPC isn't Linux' primary platform.
You realize what FUD means?
Microsoft does not want us to be confident, they want us to be afraid (Fear)
Microsoft does not want us to be certain, they want us to be uncertain. (Uncertainity)
And they want us to have doubts of everything. (Doubt)
And sadly, on Slashdot, they have succeeded.
Every Linux-story no matter how great news, is bad-mouthed and doubted. (Just read the recent Linux-adoption threads. Full of "but if it can't perform" - Fear, "we have to take care of what Microsoft plans to do" - Uncertainty, "the battle is not won" - Doubt)
Linux is technically ready for all mainstream computing tasks (including the desktop) but it is a marketing desaster because her own people (!) spread FUD all over the place to slow it down.
And it also includes Office, right?
AAC is actually worse than mp3 at higher bitrates and ogg is best at both low and high bitrates. At 128kbps, the differences to the original are no longer audible for the vast majority of users.
Try 128 kbps, if you still hear a difference to CD-sound (which is unlikely) try 150 or 160 kbps.
And when I say "try it" I mean "don't lie to yourself - make a blind test".
That would be ogg. I've found the results in the listening tests from heise, several thousand readers participated, each had to rank 7 samples from best to worst. Nobody knew which sample is which codec and which was identical to the original.
I give here the average rankings: (lower is better)
64 kbps:
ogg: 3.06
mp3pro: 3.25
wma: 3.65
aac: 3.34
RealAudio: 4.47
mp3: 6.74
128 kbps:
ogg: 3.57
wma: 4.01
RealAudio: 4.01
mp3pro: 4.18
mp3: 4.18
aac: 4.53
The sample consisted of 3 sections - pop, jazz and classic music.
heise also made an inhouse-testing session at 160 kbps, but with only 8 testers (so this test should be taken with a grain of salt):
The results (from best to worst):
wav-ogg-aac-wma-real-mp3-mp3pro
At 128 kbps, there is practically no audible difference between the original and ogg according to this test. Also, ogg is the only codec to come close to the original wav - notice the gap between ogg and wma. And ogg won all 3 test categories (but as I said, the 160 kbps test was made only with 8 testers)
Try it yourself, encode some oggs, mp3s and mix them into the original, then shuffle the playlist and try to guess which is which without looking at the playlist.
Or even better (and more challenging): encode 160 kbps mp3s and shuffle them into 128kbps oggs. I bet that the oggs sound better.
Now you tell me the general public won't care?
So what?
Be happy because if they were pro-Windows, you would not be allowed to post your opinon here (were are all those forums on pro-Windows sites? Where are they? I don't see any, because they don't exist.)
slashdot is one of the few sites still run by amateurs. They make typing mistakes, sure. They make editing errors. They have duplicate stories. But it's one of the few major sites left not controlled by big corps. And they let anonymous guys like you post their opinion.
If Micorsoft would have won the battle against the Internet, we would now all run the proprietary MSN service (which is very different to the MSN today.), only big corps could afford to put something on the net and there would be no Linux, no slashdot and you could not write your opinion in a forum, because such forums would also not exist.
"Internet will never be popular" - Bill Gates
So?
When I rip a CD (yes, there are still people who buy CDs) I rip it to ogg becuase I can get better quality on less disk space.
What is wrong with that?
It makes sense in the medium to long term. If you plan to live longer than a year it makes sense. If you are suicidal, over 80 and/or a cancer patient it probably doesn't make sense.
Are you really so slow or why do I have to explain that to you? It's really not that complicated.
So if the hardware manufacturers support ogg, they can say that their device holds 2*x songs instead of x. If you buy such a device would you go for the one that holds 1000 songs or the other that holds 2000 songs if they cost the same?
Also, the hardware vendors sure don't want to pay for mp3 forever so it's in their interest that another format replaces it. (Even if it takes a long time - like a decade or even longer.)
So I'd say ogg is "better enough".
I'm sick of morons who don't get it. (Microsoft broke an agreement goddamnit. They agreed not to bundle IE with Windows and they did bundle IE with Windows at the next possiblitly.)
I'm sick of monopoly-whiners constantly complaining. We don't need whiners, we need a positive, optimistic attitude in the Linux community.
Let's face it: The US-government is both incompetent and corrupt.
There is no hope that the US-government will ever reintroduce a free, open and capitalistic market in the OS space (yes, you read that right. The market is not open. The force-bundelings of Windows are more close to communism than Linux can ever become), we will have to do that ourselves.
Let's forget that courtcase and move on.
And it can be done. All the mainstream software is right available. - Just show the software to users. All users I showed Mozilla to loved it (either because of tabbed browsing or because of ad-blocking). It's harder to convert the whole platform, but I've done that for a couple of users, too. After initial glitches and minor problems, it's much better and problem-free than any Windows installation.
Hell, I was called a crazy zealot because I made the claim that for 30% of computer users Linux would be the best solution right now. (I didn't even say for a majority, just 30%.)
And it's not just "somebody" in the article, it's 10000 desktops with 100000 more to come.
We need such articles to counter the constant bashing (by pro-Windows people) and the constant whining (by many pro-Linux people).
Neither would be happy if the system would allow more than 2 parties to exist, so neither will ever agree to a substantial reform.
Newbies should get SuSE or Mandrake, pop in the DVD, wait for half an hour and have a full functional desktop - including office suite and loads of useful stuff preinstalled. (Try to unpack a .rar in a clean Windows install. Or try ICQ. Or IRC.)
Linux can be much easier than Windows if you choose the right distribution.
I'm so sick of FUD like this:
having working sound support in the first install should be a priority for Linux distributions
All major commercial distributions (hell, even RedHat which is by far the worst of all) had sound-support out of the box for years.
Yet the Wintrolls just don't get it.
(P.S. Yes, debian has it's uses, too. apt-get is great, the stability is excellent. Yet it's not really for users not willing to invest some time installing.)
That said, no it's not for everybody. But a lot of users (especially corporations) will find it useful if it is preconfigured so that installing and using Win32 apps is easily and fast done.
Phoenix should really ship with that extension, it's just great, you can do *EVERYTHING* with tabs with that extension.
Actually, the really scary part is that the EULA can change anytime and that Microsoft will take your system as hostage to push DRM down user's throat.
I don't think Microsoft will offer any non-DRM patches very long. (That is patches that don't require DRM being already installed and don't contain DRM)
And if you don't believe the customer lock-in, try getting Microsoft copycat technologies (like ASP) frome somebody else.
Coupled with Win2k workstation on the desktop, it's almost fun to administer them
Do you really think that posting on slashdot will make your MSFT-shares go up?
But that's probably the reason for choosing PHP over Perl, 3-letter acronyms are hard to beat. ;-)
(Just kidding, I prefer PHP over Perl myself. And it's not because of the name)
MacOSX is over 10% slower in most test, that sure as hell is not pretty good. That's bad, very bad.
Especially if you realize that PPC is MacOSX' major (in fact the only) platform, while for Linux it's just a minor platform that receives not nearly as much attention as for example x86.
And I guess you could still squeeze out some performance gain if you use a source-based distro like Gentoo.
If you say that open source has a place in corporate webservers, I'd say that's a massive understatement.
Open Source (Apache and PHP) is the standard in the webserver space already and is gaining more marketshare every year.
Right now, only NBM (nothing but Microsoft) users and legacy systems run IIS. It doesn't offer anything valuable, except customer lock-in. (which is very valuable, but only for Microsoft)
Why should Perl be "more secure"?